MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255499769 · doi:10.2118/2006-146

Field Test of SAGD as Follow-up Process to CSS in Liaohe Oilfield of China

2006· article· en· W4255499769 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
L. Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian International Petroleum Conference · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringTest (biology)ChinaProcess (computing)Field (mathematics)GeologyOil fieldMetamorphic petrologyComputer scienceGeotechnical engineeringGeographyMathematicsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Du 84 block of Shu-1 area in the Liaohe Oilfield is located in Panjin city of Liaoning province of China. The production formation, Guantao, contains extra heavy oil with a depth of 530-640 meters. The reservoir is characterized in thick pay, high permeability and very active aquifer. The dead oil viscosity is 230,000 mPa.s at 50 °C. Although Cyclic Steam Stimulation (CSS) process using vertical wells has been applied successfully in producing oil from the reservoir, the anticipated ultimate oil recovery is less than 29% of the original oil in place (OOIP). To enhance oil recovery beyond that of the CSS, physical and numerical modeling studies were carried out. The Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) process using the combination of the vertical wells and horizontal wells was proposed to be the follow-up process to CSS. Additional 27% recovery is anticipated with the proposed follow-up process. This gives a total recovery of 56%. A pilot with four horizontal producers was implemented in the field. CSS was used initially in the horizontal wells for establishing the communication with the surrounding vertical wells. The pilot was then converted successfully to SAGD operations with horizontal wells as continuous producers and some of the surrounding vertical wells as continuous injectors. A total of 44,500 tonnes of oil has been produced so far during the last 12 months of SAGD operations. The field implementation process and pilot performance as well as the challenges with this project are presented in this paper. Introduction This paper is the continuation of the work presented in 2003's CIM conference [1]. In that paper, a field pilot was proposed for testing Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) as a followup process to CSS based on the reservoir modeling work and feasibility studies. Two field pilot projects were constructed in 2003 in Du 84 block of Su-1 area in Liaohe oilfield. One pilot is producing from the Xinglongtai formation and the other one is producing from the Guantao formation. The pilot in the Guantao formation was converted to SAGD operations in early 2005 and the field results are encouraging. This paper is going to report the field performance for this pilot. Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) process, which was described by Dr. R.M. Butler in the late 1970s[2], has been applied successfully for the production of bitumen and heavy oil since it was tested in the Underground Test Facility (UTF) in the Fort McMurray oil sand, Alberta, Canada[3]. Several commercial projects have been implemented in the field in Canada since then. Liaohe oilfield constructed the first SAGD pilot in China in 1996 in the Xinlongtai formation, which contains extra heavy oil at a depth of 750 meters deep from the surface. The pilot consisted of one stacked well pair and was operated for about one year and half. The suspension of the pilot test was due to (1.) not sufficient lift capacity provided by gas lift system; (2.) difficult in communication resulted from too large vertical separation between the injector and producer.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian International Petroleum ConferenceSame topicDrilling and Well EngineeringFrench-language works237,207